“On the other hand, if you’re a 3.9 student, why the hell would you apply some place that only requires a 3.4?”

Question— (in the Spirit of Lariviere) Why the hell would a University President say something like that?

Yes, yes, this is part of a larger quote talking about the inadequacy of the automatic admissions policy (as covered below by Alex), but the statement in itself is astounding. Having a requirement of a 3.4 GPA does not signal that certain students don’t belong at a University. Besides, prospective students don’t just look at the GPA requirement they look at our culture, our sports and our highly ranked programs (like the Business School).

Perhaps we are not an Ivy League college, but that doesn’t mean that 3.9 students don’t belong here. Nor, does it mean that only 3.9 students belong at Ivy League schools.

As Lariviere noted elsewhere in his interview, the 3.4 GPA is NOT A REQUIREMENT, but rather an automatic acceptance for Oregon students. It says, “hey, y’all did OK in High School, so we’ll let you in.” Not “Unless you have higher than a 3.4, you must find another college to attend.” Moreover, if Penn, Cornell, Princeton& Dartmouth don’t have minimum GPA requirements, should 3.9 students write-off those colleges? If Columbia is looking for students with a GPA above 3.0 should 3.9 students write those off as well? Most definitely, out of state students with said GPA should not even bother to apply to Berkeley, for they only require a 3.4.

I appreciate that President Lariviere stepped outside of press-releases and scripted answers and had an honest conversation, but in questioning why 3.9 students would apply to the the University of Oregon, he is telling the very students he leads that the UO is just a consolation prize. He completed the statement by saying “So we’re just sending the wrong message to everybody.” Perhaps the automatic GPA needs to be cut, but having a GPA requirement or an automatic admission’s GPA cutoff doesn’t say anything about the competitiveness or worth of the University.

Also, yes, I have a coffee date set with the President, and yes, I probably just threw away all chances of that happening but I am not going cease writing for the next two weeks, or skirt around important issues- I work for the Commentator, not the Pussy Daily.

This entry was posted on Thursday, March 3rd, 2011 at 23:26 by Melissa Haskin and is filed under Campus, Education, Interviews, Stupid, University.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Both comments and pings are currently closed.

“Moreover, if Penn, Cornell, Princeton& Dartmouth don’t have minimum GPA requirements, should 3.9 students write-off those colleges? If Columbia is looking for students with a GPA above 3.0 should 3.9 students write those off as well? Most definitely, out of state students with said GPA should not even bother to apply to Berkeley, for they only require a 3.4.”

The difference between UO and the mentioned schools in your article is that they are already perceived as academically challenging and competitive institutions.

Context is everything. He’s not telling highschools kids they shouldn’t apply. He’s explaining that the current policy sends the wrong message to those students and decreases the propensity that such competitive students will apply.

“having a GPA requirement or an automatic admission’s GPA cutoff doesn’t say anything about the competitiveness or worth of the University. ”

Actually, on competitivness it does. You get automatic admission if you have above a 3.4 – automatic. Perceptually that says something significant: that we have fairly low standards. Announcing such a standard to prospective students creates anything but images of a stellar and challenging academic environment. This dissuades such students from applying and/or attending. I believe this limits our worthiness as an academic institution.